Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/840/2023 on 2 August, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
CRLA NO. 840 of 2023
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with
Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. Present criminal appeal is preferred against
the judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 passed
by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act,
Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 89 of
2014, whereby the appellant/convict has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section
22(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and sentenced to
undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, the appellant shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
4. Admit the appeal.
5. Heard on Bail Application (IA No. 1 of
2024).
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict
would submit that the appellant/applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
case; that, the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S.,
failed to consider that a bare perusal of the F.I.R.
reveals that the arrest memo was prepared on the
spot and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged on
05.11.2013 at 23:45 hrs. However, the arrest
memo contains the number of the F.I.R., which
indicates that the appellant has been falsely
implicated. It is further pointed out that the G.D.
entry dated 05.11.2013 does not show that the
F.I.R. number was inserted in the arrest memo
after lodging of the F.I.R.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
would further submit that the appellant was on
bail during the trial and never misused the liberty
granted to him; that the hearing of the appeal will
take considerable time; and therefore, the
appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during
the pendency of the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
vehemently opposed the bail application,
contending that a recovery was made of 750
tablets of Alprazolam, 35 injections of
Buprenorphine, and three vials of Diazepam (10
ml each). However, he fairly admitted that the
arrest memo was prepared on the spot before the
F.I.R. was lodged on 05.11.2013 at 23:45 hrs, yet
it contained the F.I.R. number. Learned State
counsel would also admit that the appellant was
on bail during trial and never misused the same.
9. Having considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the appellant is admitted to bail.
10. Let the appellant/applicant be released on
bail during the pendency of the present criminal
appeal, on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall attend the trial
court regularly and shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournments.
(ii) The appellant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of this case.
(iii) The appellant shall not leave India
without prior permission of the trial court.
11. It is clarified that if the appellant/applicant
misuses the liberty or violates any of the
conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution
shall be free to move the court for cancellation of
bail.
12. Bail application stands disposed of
accordingly.
13. List the case in due course.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.08.2025
Mamta
